monster_legends_competitivefandomcom-20200215-history
Are Monsters Being Ranked Wrong?
Are Monsters Being Ranked Wrong? Should monsters‘ ranks be changed now? Yes. ————————————————————————————————————————————————— This is my opinion. So please don’t go to the comments ranting about this page. ''' Before you begin reading, go to: Links to pages that are kinda useless but overall interesting for more content. Inappropriately Ranked Monsters In the Viability Ranking, there are rankings that could be changed. Take Tulekahju for example. He has overall good stats, and a good moveset with low cooldowns, and to top it all off with a good trait, though could be denied. There are monsters is the S ranks that have the Hardened trait. Tulekahju could be a '''S '''or '''S+ '''monster ''at least'''''. But, he is currently in the A+ rank. A decent rank, but its rank could be better. This is the case for many monsters, and it has to change. Another example could be Vadamagma. This monster is in the B- rank, meaning that it has "average performance". B- is close to anywhere in C rank, and C rank is where monsters with flaws go. Why isn’t Vadamagma anywhere in the C Rank? '''It. Does. Have. Flaws. '''Vadamagma’s stats are overall bad, and he has a not a very good trait: Immune to Burn. And he is not a very useful monster, and all he can do is just.. do damage and burn, I guess. He also has high stamina costs. A third example could be Yamada. Yamada is in the S rank. Yamada is a support monster, but he is great at his role. He can apply useful positive effects such as AoE Damage Boost, AoE Regeneration, AoE Double Healing, AoE Precision and NER, and Evasion. He can also heal his team by 30%, which is also useful. And to top it all of with overall nice stats, low cooldowns, and a acceptable trait. Same as Tulekahju, he could be in the S+ or even SS-. But, then again, he is in the S rank. Yamada’s rank could be higher. In most cases, the monster ranks in the Viability Ranking are good and fair, but for some (like the examples above) there has to be change on how the monster is ranked. There are 3 examples above, but there could be many more. But, I don’t want to waste your time reading this page. If newer people to the game find this site and look at the ranks of the monsters that are unfairly ranked, they might be misinformed. In the Voting section of this page, there are ideas on reworks on voting. Voting The Viability Ranking needs a bit of a '''rework, '''and to put monsters in tiers they deserve. Monsters get put in their ranks by voting, as said before. Another thing that has to be tweaked are the voting polls. If the monster is not VIP, Nemesi, Warmaster, or just extremely good, to the point where it Amy be the best F2P monster out, than it cannot be viable for the OP ran.One thing to consider about voting is that if a new monster comes out that Is amazing, but brings nothing new, rare, or just special to the table, maybe SS+ or SS is not the best choice. Ideas One idea is a re-vote poll, where if people are complaining about the spot of a monster on the Viability Ranking, there can be another poll on the monster that lasts for a week. The best way to do this is by doing two a week, and on a different page. For example, there might be many people saying that, I don’t know, Tulekahju needs to be moved up to the S+ rank. Well, on the re-poll page, there will be a poll on where to put Tulekahju once and for all. A monster can only go on the re-poll page twice. That might help clear the Viability Ranking up a bit.